Randy L. and Julie J. Wysong - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

          lacked economic reality.  According to respondent, because there            
          was no business purpose behind the asset sale, the transaction              
          should be ignored for tax purposes and Wysong Medical retains an            
          equity interest in the assets.  Hence, respondent contends that             
          no deduction is allowed under section 162 for any part of the               
          rent payment earmarked for Wysong Medical's use of the                      
          aforementioned equipment.  See sec. 162(a)(3).                              
               We sustain respondent's position as to the amounts allowable           
          as deductions for rent.  We entertained, at great length,                   
          petitioners' evidence of Wysong Medical's and Wysong Corp.'s                
          intent to convey to Wysong Medical the right to use more than the           
          square footage identified in the lease agreements.  We remain               
          unconvinced, however, that petitioners or the two corporations              
          intended to enter into an agreement other than the one evidenced            
          by the leases.  The leases are clear and unambiguous.  Dr. Wysong           
          had unfettered control over the final terms embodied in the                 
          leases, and he signed both agreements in his capacity as the sole           
          shareholder of both the lessor and lessee corporations.  We are             
          also unpersuaded that Wysong Medical used more of the Eastman               
          Building than it was allowed under the terms of the leases, or              
          that the addition to the Eastman Building's warehouse was                   
          completed during the years in issue.  Petitioners' 1992 and 1993            
          tax returns identify the Eastman Building's total asset cost as             
          $403,400.  If petitioners had incurred construction expenses in             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011